Going undercover is a journalistic addiction

Should journalists go undercover so often? Peter Cole in today's Independent on Sunday kicks off a debate by arguing that going undercover "is no substitute for true investigative journalism".

He points to the example of the Panorama programme on IVF in which two "reporters" masqueraded as genuine patients. "That is 'default' investigation these days", he writes, "if in doubt, send in the undercover reporter." Then he widens the argument. "Between the News of the World's 'fake sheikh' and Panorama's not-so-infertile women is the parade of knives, guns and false passports passing through airports in the pockets of investigative journalists 'revealing' security lapses. It is all a bit easy and often seems more stunt than investigation."

He adds: "The defence is that this is done in the public interest to reveal and right wrongs, and that sometimes it is the only way to gain evidence. That is rarely the case, as the police know well. Investigative journalism - which is no more and no less than reporting tricky stories, usually involving people with something to hide - is about researching, observing, finding the right sources and documents, interviewing and making connections, every bit as much as 'going undercover', exciting though that sounds."

I think Cole - who also asks whether "the investigator is becoming more important than the investigation" - is right. Much undercover reporting is stunt journalism and of doubtful public interest. There are exceptions, of course. Dispatches on Channel 4 last week could not have exposed the alarming propaganda preached by certain Muslim clerics any other way. But a lot of the rest is, frankly, unnecessary - entertainment puffed up with a fake significance. It has become a journalistic addiction, a habit we need to kick.